Time to Start Asking Tougher Questions? By Henry Champ

This column is being written in the early aftermath of President Barack Obama's speech in Cairo on Thursday. Too early to really analyze its fallout in the Muslim world but not too early to gauge the American media reaction, which is largely favourable.

One example, the New York Times: "Arab students respond to Obama." From an American point of view, the sentiment doesn't get much better than that.

Some of the TV networks picked away at the president's remarks on expanded Israeli settlements. But they, too, largely applauded the speech as "courageous," "statesman-like," and "necessary leadership."

Osman Bereal, a Muslim baker in Paterson, New Jersey, watches his president, Barack Obama, give a speech at Cairo University on June 4, 2009. (Mel Evans/Associated Press)

It was, of course, vintage Obama, a masterly written and delivered speech that promises future efforts but did not offer much in the way of explanation of what those efforts might be.

Off to Riyadh and eventually Paris and Germany, where he is to visit a former concentration camp, the president will be the headlines for several days to come.

Back home in the U.S.A., the damaging prospect of a rising and prolonged deficit is the main news story. But so far the president is still riding above the fray, with a job-performance rating of 63 per cent.

Those of you who have read earlier columns here and the postings of commentators will be aware that there is a minority who regularly argue that this president enjoys an almost infatuated relationship on the part of the American media.

That the mainstream press checks its skepticism at the door when Obama is involved.

Two studies out in recent weeks suggest they are right.

A popular guy

In fact, the Pew Research Centre's Project for Excellence in Journalism has released a study that noted, "President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House."

The Pew study examined 1,261 stories in the Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC, as well as Newsweek magazine and the "Newshour" on the Public Broadcasting System.

It showed that 42 per cent of the stories about Obama could be deemed favourable, which was more than double the unfavourable ones (20 per cent). The remaining 38 per cent were "mixed or neutral," according to Pew.

These statistics tower over the favourable story figures over the first two months in office for Bush (22 per cent) and Clinton at (27 per cent), neither of whom had an international economic crisis to deal with when they came to power.

There was another difference as well, Pew found the nature of the stories about the president has changed.

"Roughly twice as much of the coverage of Obama (44 per cent) has concerned his personal and leadership qualities than was the case for Bush (22 per cent or Clinton (26 per cent)."

Interestingly, the report added, "less of the coverage, meanwhile, has focused on his policy agenda."

So who is watching out?

According to Pew, the Obama media honeymoon is not just confined to the big, mainstream outlets. It also can be found on the cable channels, news websites, smaller newspapers, National Public Radio and morning news shows.

A second study by the Centre for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University reached similar conclusions.

In the face of this analysis, the big concern at the moment has to be that there are now few "checks" in the checks and balance structure set up by the Founding Fathers.

Obama's party controls Capitol Hill. Congressional Democrats largely support the president's goals and offer little criticism. They certainly don't challenge the main thrusts of Obama's policies.

The Republicans, in the process of rebuilding, are currently struggling with their message and are not yet effective in opposition.

A case in point has been their recent handling of the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. They first looked backward over their shoulder to Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich for guidance and then forward to the voters and have still not calculated what their strategy should be.

The same uncertain voice greets almost every step of Obama's economic recovery plan.

Get out the notebooks

With the huge volumes of money involved in this recovery plan, not to mention the vast number of government agencies, banks, local governments and Wall Street companies with their hands out, there is much need for journalistic investigation.

The same can be said for the administration's plan to expand health-care coverage, to overhaul energy use and reshape General Motors, and to change immigration laws.

The hard look that would have come from the press coverage of previous administrations just getting their feet wet is noticeably missing from the front pages and key broadcasts.

This is not a call for a full frontal attack on the Obama White House but for a return to basic journalism. Or, as former president Ronald Reagan would have said, "Trust but verify."

Good and bad honeymoons

There is a theory, which this writer ascribes to, that says incoming presidents who take office after a perceived failure enjoy a much longer honeymoon period. In some cases it can exist throughout an entire term.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt enjoyed enormous popularity and support among the media on taking over from Herbert Hoover. This despite Roosevelt's often ill-conceived, anti-Depression domestic programs. (Most historians credit the onset of the Second World War as the key to ending the Depression.)

The same argument can be made for Jack Kennedy taking over from Dwight Eisenhower, the once popular general who was perceived to be losing the Cold War to the Sputnik-launching Soviets

Also for Ronald Reagan, succeeding Jimmy Carter and the unhappy, Vietnam War-driven '70s. It was "Morning in America" for much of Reagan's terms, despite the shape in which he left America's finances.

One explanation for Obama's favourable coverage starts with his predecessor, George W. Bush and the failures that were the Iraq war, Guantanamo, Hurricane Katrina and the current economic mess.

But the explanation may be more simple as well.

Reporters like Obama. They like the way he talks and carries himself. They see him as refreshing compared to Bush.

There is another issue for the U.S, media: they don't want America's first black president to fail.

Obama's election victory was a watershed for American politics and many journalists see a crusade here that blurs their sense of responsibility.

As well, the polls are a factor for some journalists and the companies they serve: popular presidents always get good coverage and this guy is popular.

I have to confess that few of my many American colleagues agree with me on all these points. I've tried this treatise on some and the response has not gone well.  But keep in mind these two media studies have been out for several weeks now and have received little mainstream coverage. That should tell you all you need to know.